“It has been clear for a while that we need a new President and a new Congress. Now it appears we need a new Supreme Court.

Whether the Court chooses to call the individual mandate a tax or anything else, allowing it to stand is a truly disturbing decision. The idea that government can require an individual to buy something simply because that individual exists and breathes in America is an incredible blow to the bedrock principles of freedom and liberty. It must be repealed, and Congress needs to get about doing so today.

There is one thing we know about health care. Government cannot create a system that will reduce costs while increasing access. Only competition and the price transparency that competition will bring can accomplish the imperatives of affordability and availability. Whether it is the President’s plan, or the Republican prescription drug benefit, the idea that anyone in Washington can somehow manage one of the most essential and substantial parts of both our quality of life and the economy is, and always has been, fundamentally wrong.

We can never know how many Americans are out of work today because of the uncertainty the monstrous health care law has caused. The Court has done nothing to remove that burden.

I love how he tries to tell people that it's "essential and substantial" while at the same time telling us that government should have no part of it. Somehow the free market will keep us alive and control costs. Because the free market always has our best interests at heart, right?

I love how he tries to tell people that it's "essential and substantial" while at the same time telling us that government should have no part of it. Somehow the free market will keep us alive and control costs. Because the free market always has our best interests at heart, right?

It's working so well now. Last night I was looking at a state-by-state chart and noticed that all of the states with the worst current coverage percentages are red states, primarily in the South. TX leads the hall of shame with 25% of its residents uninsured. There are half a dozen others in the 20-21% range.

It blows me away that these are the same states that oppose reform most vehemently.

I love how he tries to tell people that it's "essential and substantial" while at the same time telling us that government should have no part of it. Somehow the free market will keep us alive and control costs. Because the free market always has our best interests at heart, right?

It's working so well now. Last night I was looking at a state-by-state chart and noticed that all of the states with the worst current coverage percentages are red states, primarily in the South. TX leads the hall of shame with 25% of its residents uninsured. There are half a dozen others in the 20-21% range.

It blows me away that these are the same states that oppose reform most vehemently.

I agree that we need a new Congress, but not in the way he means it.

I doubt many people would argue about reform being needed but obamacare isn't the way. Either way it's the on ramp to the road to hell (paved with good intentions) and most people have no idea about how much it's really going to cost them in the long run. It's basically a massive tax and the money doesn't go towards anything except paying for other people to get healthcare. Sorry about those less fortunate (I've been there), the lazy and the welfare state lifers but I worked two jobs to get through college, put my time in and I'm working my ass off now to support my family and provide a better life for them...not you (not directed at anyone here).

One can readily find lots of conservatives making the opposite case, and Obamacare isn't quite the same as Romneycare. But the fact is that the law is not a "massive tax" and has not bankrupted the state. In fact, it's the only positive thing Romney achieved in his otherwise lackluster term as governor. Although costs jumped for the first couple of years when the formerly-uninsured came into the system, overall costs appear to have turned the corner.

So I don't buy the doomsaying and hand-wringing from the right. Our law enjoys 62% approval with only 33% opposed. The ACA isn't going to control health care costs by itself, and could very well cause a short-term spike as the system absorbs millions of new patients. But it's a decent first step. Better than nothing, anyway, which is what we would have otherwise.

I agree that the ACA is not the best approach, but single payer was not going to fly. The insurance industry is just too strong, and now that they're enshrined in law single payer is effectively dead.

The new law allows states to implement their own alternative systems, provided they cover at least as many people as the ACA does. Vermont's single payer system starts up on January 1, 2014. If Vermont is successful in bringing down costs at a rate other states can't imagine, look for other progressive states to start looking at a similar transition soon thereafter.

I agree that the ACA is not the best approach, but single payer was not going to fly. The insurance industry is just too strong, and now that they're enshrined in law single payer is effectively dead.

The new law allows states to implement their own alternative systems, provided they cover at least as many people as the ACA does. Vermont's single payer system starts up on January 1, 2014. If Vermont is successful in bringing down costs at a rate other states can't imagine, look for other progressive states to start looking at a similar transition soon thereafter.

The problem is inertia. Once you get the exchanges working and the health care industry successfully adapts to that structure, chucking it for something else will be next to impossible. VT opted out before they invested in compliance; mandatory private insurance was not yet part of their landscape.

It's possible that VT's shining beacon will lead the other blue states to single payer, but after six years MA is so heavily invested in Romneycare (and its weakened federal version) that it's hard to imagine changing direction now. Not saying it can't happen. Just bloody unlikely.

The Supreme Court gave some validation to the Affordable Care Act on Thursday when it declared the law constitutional, but House Majority Leader Eric Cantor is ready to move forward with yet another House vote to repeal the controversial law.

"We know that most of the American people don't like this law," Cantor said on CBS' This Morning Friday. The House, he said will "look towards the kind of health care people want," which he said is "patient-centered."

Cantor said that the Republican-led House will take up a repeal vote on July 11th, after Congress comes back from its July 4th recess. The House first voted to repeal the law in January 2011, soon after Republicans took control. The move, however, was essentially symbolic.

Mitt Romney has also vowed to repeal it "when" elected. While I'm personally against the individual mandate ("tax" another way for the IRS to get in our lives) it's still not enough to make me vote for Romney. If I don't vote Obama I'll probably go with Johnson.

Looking forward to the debates though when they bring up Obamacare and Obama can simply use Romneycare as his something he built on.

Logged

"A gladiator does not fear death. He embraces it. Caresses it. Fucks it. Every time he enters the arena, he slides his cock into the mouth of the beast."

The Supreme Court gave some validation to the Affordable Care Act on Thursday when it declared the law constitutional, but House Majority Leader Eric Cantor is ready to move forward with yet another House vote to repeal the controversial law.

"We know that most of the American people don't like this law," Cantor said on CBS' This Morning Friday. The House, he said will "look towards the kind of health care people want," which he said is "patient-centered."

Of course it would be "patient-centered." Conservative doctrine is tougher to pin down than a fist full of oatmeal, but as I understand their current position, it's out of bounds to

a. regulate insurance company practices because that interferes with the free market,

b. regulate insurance costs because those just get pushed down onto consumers,

c. regulate healthcare costs because that stymies innovation,

d. subsidize healthcare costs because that promotes freeloading,

e. expand government coverage for the poor, sick, and young currently outside the healthcare system because that would raise taxes,

f. promote preventative care because that's akin to government death panels, or

g. replace our patchwork of insurance companies with any single-payer system used elsewhere in the world because of Socialism!.

Once every possible avenue of supply-side reform has been shut down, the only solution left is to target patients. Maybe if we replace Medicare with a diminishing voucher system ironically called "Medicare," eliminate unions, and pass more tax cuts on the job creators, people will finally be forced to learn how to take care of their own damn illnesses.

Florida Gov. Rick Scott now says Florida will do nothing to comply with President Barack Obama's health care overhaul and will not expand its Medicaid program. The announcement is a marked changed after the governor recently said he would follow the law if it were upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

"Florida is not going to implement Obamacare. We are not going to expand Medicaid and we're not going to implement exchanges,'' Scott's spokesman Lane Wright told The Associated Press on Saturday. Wright stressed that the governor would work to make sure the law is repealed.

Scott told Fox News the Medicaid expansion would cost Florida taxpayers $1.9 billion a year, but it's unclear how he arrived at that figure.

Scott said the state will not expand the Medicaid program in order to lower the number of uninsured residents, nor will Florida set up a state-run health exchange, a marketplace where people who need insurance policies could shop for them.

"We care about having a health care safety net for the vulnerable Floridians, but this is an expansion that just doesn't make any sense,'' he told Fox host Greta Van Susteren.

wouldn't it be humorous (and yes, I know, very unlikely) if the second civil war was started over health care?

Logged

Because I can,also because I don't care what you want.XBL: OriginalCeeKayWii U: CeeKay

More than a week removed from the Supreme Court's landmark health care ruling, a new report of dissension among the justices has emerged.

In a Sunday appearance on "Face The Nation," CBS News Chief Political and Legal Correspondent Jan Crawford provided new details about the aftermath of the 5-4 decision to uphold the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate as constitutional.

"The discord is deep and it is personal," said Crawford on the broadcast. "This could affect this court for a long time."

Crawford reported last Sunday that Chief Justice John Roberts switched his vote after initially siding with the court's conservative justices to strike down the mandate.

Logged

Because I can,also because I don't care what you want.XBL: OriginalCeeKayWii U: CeeKay